I'm currently thinking of an alternate timeline where American expansion was halted, probably somewhere between the Trail of Tears or a bit before and the Battle of Little Bighorn. This will probably be the timeline where my current Algo-lang will be set.

I know probably the main reason for the events of OTL was the lack of resistance to disease, so I reckon earlier exposure to European infections would mean that that would have had such a devastating impact when the first settlers arrived. How might earlier exposure have come about? The Vikings staying a bit longer in Newfoundland and maybe founding a few more colonies before being driven out, perhaps?

Also, what other factors would enable the halting of American expansion? Perhaps greater unity of the Haudenosaunee during the years of the war of Independence? A stronger Five Civilised Tribes to better resist the efforts of Andrew Jackson to displace them? Greater cooperation between tribes in the lead-up to the Great Sioux War?

I'm putting this thread in this forum because I would like in-depth answers, please.

Honestly, I think your point of departure is too late. Had the Native Americans made stronger resistance at initial contact, colonization probably would have been curtailed. True, the Spanish came in force--but the English and French did not. The truth of the matter is that, contrary to popular European perception, the Native Americans were initially quite welcoming to the Europeans, and within a few generations they became dependent on European trade goods like pots and pans, beads, and cloth. The loss of traditional crafts started long before the 20th century, at least in the East. The time to curtail European colonization would be at contact; if the majority of the ships sent to the New World came back decimated or didn't come back at all, colonization efforts would most likely stop at some point.

If you want a later date, however, I can think of a few things. For one thing, the Iroquois must remain neutral in the War for Independence, continuing their traditional policy of playing the great powers against each other. The Iroquois must then either remain independent or be granted full statehood and citizenship. Another possibility is to give Tecumseh greater success in his Pan-Indian movement. A strong bloc of unified tribes opposed to White expansion in the Midwest would certainly pose a barrier to American expansion, if not an insurmountable one. A third possibility: don't let Andrew Jackson become president. It's worth recalling that the Supreme Court ruled on the side of the Cherokee against Georgia; it was Jackson who ignored their ruling and evicted them anyway. A president either more sympathetic to the Native Americans or at least more respectful of the rule of law might have changed the situation considerably. And one more thought: prevent the domination of the Cherokee and Creek by half-white leadership who did not govern their tribes with the best interests of the tribes in mind. This would prevent the weakening of the Cherokee that led to the Trail of Tears as well as the split in the Creek that led to the Red Stick Wars. Strengthening the Cherokee and Creek (and Choctaw and Chickasaw) would bring more stability to the Southeast and provide another check against White expansion. The Cherokee and Creek might even develop into a quasi-empire, Comanche-style.

_________________"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

Honestly, I think your point of departure is too late. Had the Native Americans made stronger resistance at initial contact, colonization probably would have been curtailed. True, the Spanish came in force--but the English and French did not. The truth of the matter is that, contrary to popular European perception, the Native Americans were initially quite welcoming to the Europeans, and within a few generations they became dependent on European trade goods like pots and pans, beads, and cloth. The loss of traditional crafts started long before the 20th century, at least in the East. The time to curtail European colonization would be at contact; if the majority of the ships sent to the New World came back decimated or didn't come back at all, colonization efforts would most likely stop at some point.

Yes, that would definitely make sense: once the Europeans got a foothold, their superior resources would make it hard to displace them.

Part of the thing I think was that the Natives had not seen White people before and therefore did not have any preconceptions of the Europeans. Perhaps if the Vikings had been present further south, perhaps the natives would have been more wary.

Zaarin wrote:

If you want a later date, however, I can think of a few things. For one thing, the Iroquois must remain neutral in the War for Independence, continuing their traditional policy of playing the great powers against each other.

Yes. They seem to have sort of fractured a bit by trying to get involved: neutrality seems the way to prevent this.

Zaarin wrote:

A third possibility: don't let Andrew Jackson become president. It's worth recalling that the Supreme Court ruled on the side of the Cherokee against Georgia; it was Jackson who ignored their ruling and evicted them anyway. A president either more sympathetic to the Native Americans or at least more respectful of the rule of law might have changed the situation considerably.

I was aware of the Supreme-Court ruling, but as for alternative candidates, I'm British, so American history isn't really my forte: that would be your call.

Zaarin wrote:

And one more thought: prevent the domination of the Cherokee and Creek by half-white leadership who did not govern their tribes with the best interests of the tribes in mind. This would prevent the weakening of the Cherokee that led to the Trail of Tears as well as the split in the Creek that led to the Red Stick Wars. Strengthening the Cherokee and Creek (and Choctaw and Chickasaw) would bring more stability to the Southeast and provide another check against White expansion. The Cherokee and Creek might even develop into a quasi-empire, Comanche-style.

Now that I didn't know. Perhaps a combination of a stronger Southeast and no Andrew Jackson would do the trick?

I agree with Zaarin. I think an even better way to maintain Amerind culture and numbers is for Amerind to be incorporated into the United States as citizens rather to be seen as foreign nations living on US soil (including the rewarding of some of New York and the Northwest Territory to a multiethnic Amerind state). Some peoples, especially the [url]Five Civilised Tribes[/url], would assimilate to the culture of whites. The concept of tribalism is largely abandoned for the Judeo-Christian nuclear family and the concept of private property. However, as the US starts expanding and having wars against Amerinds outside of its borders, a movement revitalising Amerind culture (I suggest a name like "Wild Movement" or "Indian Revival") springs up in US itself. While tribalism is not revived and indigenous religion sees mixed success, much of the folklore and culture of per-Revolutionary East Coast natives are revived. Western clothing, food and pastimes become shunned in favour of native clothing, food and pastimes. In areas where the native languages survive, those languages are made part of the curriculum in local schools. The active involvement of anti-assimilationist Amerinds in politics would fundamentally change US politics.

As for your proposed Viking POD, Viking colonisation of the Americas failed due to too much distance from other Norse lands (which would mean a disease barrier between these Vikings and some of the deadliest European plagues) and the hostility of the local peoples due to currently unknown reasons. It seems like much of the colonists simply sailed back to Greenland, which failed itself for the same reasons, as well as climate change making the area too cold for sustainable farming. A more conceivable early contact POD, which has the added fun of working out invented branches of real religions, is that Lollards, Jews and other persecuted groups sail to the Americas to avoid persecution soon after Columbus' first voyage (see Mueva Sefarad for an example). The resulting nations (not colonies, as they would avoid European contact) could lead to a fundamentally different settler-Amerind dynamic.

One of the most harmful aspects to the settler-Amerind dynamic was that many Amerinds initially, after the shock of people with white skin diminished, saw the Europeans as another tribal group. They therefore engaged the settlers in various raids and so forth, as they were accustomed to raiding and massacres rather than wars, a concept that is exclusive to cheifdoms (which some Amerinds were organised into) and governments. This lack of understanding warfare meant that Great Plains alliances were just temporary raiding or massacring parties. The Europeans, on the other hand, responded to raiding and massacres with warfare. The tribes also did not have the concept of private property and "owning" land. They thought that the Europeans were merely asking for temporary usage. If Europeans could understand and avoid exploiting the Amerindian views on land, that would mean much less fighting between the two.

As for alternative candidates to Andrew Jackson, there was only one opposing candidate for the Presidency of 1838-1832 (the Trail of Tears occurred in 1830): John Quincy Adams, who was the incumbent president and had a very unpopular presidency. Jackson also supported many of the most popular stances on various issues. A third candidate, which would have many of the same policies as Jackson, might have been able to defeat Jackson with John Quincy Adams' support.

_________________ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!kårroť

Last edited by mèþru on Tue Jul 12, 2016 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As for your proposed Viking POD, Viking colonisation of the Americas failed due to too much distance from other Norse lands (which would mean a disease barrier between these Vikings and some of the deadliest European plagues) and the hostility of the local peoples due to currently unknown reasons. It seems like much of the colonists simply sailed back to Greenland, which failed itself for the same reasons, as well as climate change making the area too cold for sustainable farming. A more conceivable early contact POD, which has the added dun of working out invented branches of real religions, is that Lollards, Jews and other persecuted groups sail to the Americas to avoid persecution soon after Columbus' first voyage (see Mueva Sefarad for an example). The resulting nations (not colonies, as they would avoid European contact) could lead to a fundamentally different settler-Amerind dynamic.

As Mèþru said, John Quincy Adams was the only opponent to Andrew Jackson in the 1828 election and he was unpopular (IMO, aside from the Alien and Sedition Acts he was a good president--but those two bills killed him). However, John Q. Adams' secretary of state, Henry Clay, was an ardent opponent of Andrew Jackson's who ran for president (among many other times) in 1824 and 1832. He was an abolitionist, and, while to my knowledge he had no particular stance on the Native Americans, he probably would have upheld the Supreme Court's ruling on Cherokee Nation v Georgia. Plus, he advocated war with England, so he probably would have been so busy fighting Europe that he wouldn't have had time or resources to fight wars with the Native Americans. Making him president would, of course, be a major departure from established history with far-reaching ramifications.

_________________"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

A Henry Clay win sounds plausible only if he has JQA's support and no other Republican contenders.

_________________ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!kårroť

A Henry Clay win sounds plausible only if he has JQA's support and no other Republican contenders.

If Quincy Adams could have been persuaded he had no chance of winning (which, of course, he didn't), he might have stepped aside for another candidate, and there's no doubt he would have supported Henry Clay--as he did when Henry Clay ran against Jackson four years later.

_________________"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

I think closer to the Trail of Tears (at the latest) is likelier. By the time of Little Big Horn, the policy of Indian removal and the reservation system were well established; this was the period of "Utes Must Go!".

It's unlikely to come up with a scenario where large-scale Euro-American settlement of interior North America never occurred at all: The population difference was just too great. The Native American population of the Old Northwest was in the tens of thousands, and the number of settlers that came down the Ohio River from Pittsburgh was in the hundreds of thousands. Perhaps if the states had not successfully revolted, you would have a situation more like Canada, where indigenous people were certainly oppressed, but not to the near-genocidal level of the United States. But the Beaver Wars had almost entirely depopulated much of the Ohio River Valley even before Daniel Boone showed up, and IIRC there were no major native settlements between present-day Nashville and Cincinnati (hundreds of miles).

Likelier would be some mass Euro-American settlement that tolerated significant Native communities in the East. Tecumseh's War is a possible inflection point, but settler sentiment was heavily, heavily against Tecumseh; virtually all of the counties in western Kentucky are named after the war heroes of the Battle of Tippecanoe (where the forces of Tecumseh and his brother were heavily outnumbered and outgunned), and Harrison became President bragging about the victory there. Perhaps if the battle at Prophetstown and war had been avoided somehow.

The big possibility is the removal of Choctaw and Cherokee. & I think here you just have to kill off or humiliate Andrew Jackson somehow, maybe at New Orleans.

Yeah, Indian removal is inevitable with Andrew Jackson but probably can be avoided (or at least delayed) with another president who is either more sympathetic to the Native Americans (which, let's be honest, is just about anyone) or at least more inclined to follow the law (which is also just about anyone).

_________________"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

I would say that unless if the Amerinds are included in the founding of the US (at least part of some of the Revolutionary Congresses), marginalisation and removal of Amerinds are inevitable along the Central plains and westwards. Even with Amerinds, westward expansion of white English speakers is inevitable. The US expanding their territory to include the areas settled by these English speaking whites is not inevitable, however.The territories talked about:

After the revolutionary war, many Americans started settling along the Spanish side of the Mississippi. (Eastern part of Louisiana, the whole of the territory was purchased from France in 1804)

In the 1820s-30s, Americans settled Texas en masse.

From 1839 and onwards, Americans settled in California

_________________ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!kårroť

OK, so now Henry Clay has beaten Andrew Jackson to become president, the Six Nations remain neutral in the War of Independence, the Creek and Cherokee have fully indigenous leaders, and possibly a more peaceably aligned Tecumseh's Confederacy. Now what? Do we think war with Britain is inevitable? Will there perhaps be more cultural communication with the indigenous population? Might we even see the beginnings of a reversal, where indigenous culture starts to make inroads in the settler community? What do you think?

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pmPosts: 16398Location: One of the dark places of the world

Bear in mind: every non-European tribe and nation on earth was conquered and subjugated by Europe*. It seems implausible that somehow native american tribes could be the exception. Particularly since they were so completely depopulated by disease.

*the potential exception there is China, who iirc was never officially conquered. It was, however, subjugated, and effectively stripped of sovereignty. Ethiopia and Japan are also often cited as exceptions, as both survived into the 20th century; however, Ethiopia was conquered in 1935, and Japan was conquered in 1945.

Before you explore all these possibilities with Henry Clay, you must go to the first POD and seek logical conclusions from there. There are reasons for why the Iroquois did not remain neutral which have to be addressed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois# ... Revolution. If the Iroquois remain neutral, they would be viewed be viewed as traitors by both sides for not picking a side. The Americans were also generally feared more than the Crown, as the settlers wanted to violate British protections for natives. The only way I see greater rights for the Iroquois is if the Confederation allied with the Patriots on the condition that the Iroquois' rights are respected and the Iroquois have representation in the signing of any peace treaty. Other large and powerful Amerind groups that ally with the Patriots seek similar terms. The deals would also make other Amerind groups less wary of siding against the British. Others might side with the British as part of the long held mistrust of the Iroquois. The large amount of soldiers and scouts available because of the alliances, as well as new large amounts of anti-British territory would affect the course of the American War of Independence. Work on that and all conclusions or on all of the things resulting from Iroquois neutrality until you get to the next PODs in chronological order (Tecumseh and indigenous leaders for the Cherokee and Cree).

_________________ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!kårroť

I'd be interested in joining, but I'm only intermittently available for the project.

_________________ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!kårroť

I'll be honest, neither alternate history nor colonial American history are my strong suits (at least, not beyond being an American who grew up in a school system with a strong history and especially American history focus), but I don't mind commenting on Native American culture and history as the opportunity arises (since that's a subject I've taken a much more active interest in). As Methru already pointed out, the Revolutionary War was a precarious time for the Iroquois and he's correct that if they chose a side it likely would have been England. However, I think a crafty and charismatic Iroquois chief could have played both sides against the other, make both sides think the Iroquois were supporting them--the Iroquois had done it for centuries with the English, French, and Dutch. Then, whoever wins they just make them believe that they had supported them all along. The Iroquois were well known for their brilliant politicians, beautiful orations, and knack for playing the great powers against each other. I don't think being viewed as traitors was inevitable. Especially since Washington himself was actually quite sympathetic to Native Americans.

As for Clay, I don't know if war with Britain is inevitable, because the president doesn't have the power to declare war. But he was a strong proponent of war with Britain, so he definitely would have pushed for it. If he succeeded, that would be bad for America and good for the Native Americans. America would be too busy fighting Europe to fight the Native Americans, and if the British successfully regained control they would likely deal with the Native Americans more fairly overall. However, if he simply tried to bait England into war, I don't think he would succeed--England became quite isolationist in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars. The war would likely be brief on account of being unpopular in Britain; Britain would push for a settlement as soon as possible, I think.

_________________"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

I know lots of history due to reading lots of Wikipedia (and analysing it. Wikipedia is a good ressource, but shouldn't be trusted 100%) and reading history textbooks cover to cover. I mainly know about European history from the late 16th century onwards. Much of my history research was for creating alternate histories.

Frislander wrote:

That's OK. I'm not really a deep conworlder (yet: I haven't yet accumulated the patience and experience for it), so some experience in collaboration might be useful.

I don't have collaboration experience either. I cannot state my "deepness" relative to yours, but I doubt that it differs significantly.I know that Clay was a supporter of the war of 1812, but I don't know of any postwar reason for declaring war on the UK or postwar antagonism of the UK by Clay. I doubt that that Clay could get the needed support for the war. His main focus as President would be to restore trust in the government after JQA (1st priority) and install the American System (2nd priority). The presidency would be very difficult, as I think that even if Henry Clay wins the presidency, the Jacksonians will have a majority in both houses of Congress.

_________________ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!kårroť

A really interesting idea, if it is in any way affected, is white colonisation of Liberia (which did exist on a smaller scale then black colonisation) and the addition of Liberia (probably just a small section of the coast, as other parts were barely settled) as part of the US. It probably won't be affected in any way though. If Liberia was incorporated, that could fundamentally change the slavery debate. Henry Clay was president of the American Colonisation Society between 1836 and 1849. He was a slaveowning planter himself who believed in treating his slaves nicely and freed his slaves in his will.

Anyway, back to the Iroquois. So, what is the current decision on Iroquois in the American War of Independence?

_________________ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!kårroť

I'd say let's go down the clever politicking route, with a good leader playing both sides off against each other. Let's say he gets an appropriate name, e.g. He-Plants-Seeds (in Mohawk if possible, please), and let's say he manages to force a deal with the settlers recognising the sovreignty of the Iroquois in return for their 'help', while at the same time making sure the British are still on their side.

Many Iroquois figures of the time took English names, so we can cheat ourselves from picking a Mohawk name. Alternatively, we can use Akiatonharónkwen, better known as Joseph Louis Cook.We will have to change the war a bit as the Iroquois will either fight differently (not massacre each other or allow their allies to do so) or not participate in fighting at all.

_________________ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!kårroť

Actually, now that I think about it, changing the Iroquois' participation in the war might not lead to that big of a difference. Perhaps land in Canada is successfully seized and exchanged for Nova Scotia or parts of the Caribbean (some of the West Indies and Nova Scotia were pro-Partriot. Nova Scotia eventually lost its enthusiasm for the revolution after suffering heavily from American privateers)? Caribbean land would change the postwar economy.

What sort of sovereignty would the Iroquois claim—that of a US state (which I believe is the best idea for the althist), or that of a state outside of the US? Back in the day of the Articles of Confederation, the states were seen as united and interdependent but legally independent countries. How much land would the Iroquois claim? I found conflicting information on what territory they held by the beginning of the war, and due to treaties where they sold land to the British, they inhabited many lands that they did not own. The areas west of the Ohio Valley are especially tricky—they were sold off to the British and a small part of what is now the state of Ohio was promised by the British to the veterans of the Virginian soldiers who fought in the French and Indian War. The valley had several conflicting claims from different tribes (including the Iroquois, who claimed almost all of it) before the British bought the land. Huge amounts of tribes lived in the area (although the area was pretty depopulated after constant ethnic warfare in the 17th century and wars with settlers in the 18th century) side by side (but not peacefully). I would think that the Iroquois might have to limit their claims to part of the barely/unsettled regions of New York, and New York would be compensated with either Vermont or parts of the Ohio territory.After the war, other Native Americans would also demand sovereignty, which I think most of the Iroquois will join in suppressing. Perhaps whatever document becomes the constitution of the US gives full citizenship to any non-slave born in American territory as a concession to those other groups?

_________________ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!kårroť

From what I know of Iroquois politics at the time, I would expect that they'd probably prefer to remain an independent nation, but their long-term survival would be much better served by statehood. I don't think the Cherokee would be very successful carving a state out of the existing original 13, but the Creek-Muskogee might be more successful at that, especially since Alabama and Mississippi would not be heavily settled yet.

As for the state of Iroquoia, they'd have to settle for a considerably smaller amount of land than they claimed, because they claimed all the land they raided--which extended as far south as South Carolina. I'd imagine they'd have their traditional lands in western New York plus perhaps extending a bit into Ontario if we're annexing parts of Canada (the US-Canada border was pretty fuzzy anyway). They might be able to expand into Ohio or Michigan by seizing land from the Huron/Wyandott, who were already in a bad way due to war with the Iroquois by this time (lest we forget that intertribal relations weren't all kumbaya, either).

_________________"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

I changed my mind on the issue. They definitely become part of the US after the revolution. The terms of the Articles of Confederation are pretty much equivalent to an alliance of independent countries. The question is whether they would accept and participating in reforming the Articles or break away, and I believe that that depends on what happens during the Articles. Currently, I'm working on revising the American War of Independence.The Huron and allied tribes (which included several non-Iroquois League Mohawk groups) unambiguously supported the British, so the Americans would have no qualms about giving away those territories to the Iroquoia. (Even though I like Aquanishuonigy, I fell like Iroquoia would be the official name of the state due to English speakers having difficulty with the prior name.) I do not think that the southern Indians would not be able to carve a state like the Iroquois can, especially since I feel that the Iroquois would join the rest of US in suppressing such a movement. Both the Muskogee and the Cherokee fought against the US in the American War of Independence.

_________________ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!kårroť

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum